Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 19, 2014 5:00am-5:31am PDT

5:00 am
seeing -- oh, yes? [speaker not understood]. this is quite interesting because this goes back to basically what i've been doing for over 25 years, monitoring and trying to hold some accountability. but now it comes here to city hall, which i frequently use the euphemism as silly hall. with this city government, it is what i call unacceptable, appalling. we are in a new age, really new era. this city government must realize and [speaker not understood] law maker coming in city hall, must realize the old era has failed us miserably for decade after decade after decade. i'm not just speaking of african americans. this city and county now for all sectors of the bill. this city is experiencing the economic boom i think is bigger
5:01 am
than ed lee or whoever [speaker not understood] ~ runs the city [speaker not understood]. it has been affecting african americans and negros, a number of years. the asians, every sector of city hall is complaining now. so, now it's time to get to the nuts and bolts and accountability. yours truly, ace washington has been working shes shesfully 20-year [speaker not understood]. we're going to try legislatively to make it happen ~ with our new leadership here at city hall. [speaker not understood]. you say what is community reform, ace? well, i have a blueprint plan that i'm going to present and put in your hands sooner or later. but i cannot expose it now because over the years, even in my community when people come up with new ideas, they are taking it and implementing. but i am so happy that we are at the accountability and grand jury has come up with all the properties because we have some
5:02 am
properties in the western addition i want to know about [speaker not understood]. there are a lot of things going on in city government that affect our community and i want to know about. i'm glad that this hearing is going on. >> all right, thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is now closed [gavel] ~ >> for this item. and i'd like to suggest that we take a motion to adopt language for this item that the board of supervisors report [speaker not understood] to the 2012-2013 city and county of san francisco. civil grand jury, that it will not implement recommendation 3 for reasons as follows. the board defers to the efforts. city administrator's real estate division, the office of economic and work force development and city planning which are reportedly leading the community engagement effort tort clean up of chapter 23-a administrative code. and also that the board of supervisors reports that it will not implement recommendation 4 for the reasons as follows. the recommendation is not within the scope of the board's responsibilities and the board defers to the efforts of other city departments on the matter.
5:03 am
and that the board of supervisors urges the mayor to cause the implementation of accepted findings and the recommendations through his or her department heads and through the development of the annual budget. on that motion? >> i'll move that. >> all right. without objection. [gavel] >> and before we move on to item number 4, going back to item number 2 regarding are the wheels moving forward, we'd like to take a moment to rescind that vote and adopt amended language for that. >> motion to rescind. >> all right. without objection. for the response to the civil grand jury report on are the wheels moving forward, we'd like to have a motion to adopt the following la wa. that the board of supervisors report to the forewoman of the 2012-13 [speaker not understood] of the civil grand jury for the reasons as follows. not within the scope of responsibilities for the board of supervisors and the board
5:04 am
defers to the reported efforts being coordinated by city departments. and also that the board of supervisors reports that it will not implement recommendation 4.2 for that same reason, the recommendation is not within the scope of the responsibilities for the board of supervisors. the board defers to the reported efforts being coordinated by the san francisco police department and the san francisco municipal transit agency with the department of public health to implement the recommendation in 2014. and that the board of supervisors urges the mayor to cause an implementation of accepted findings and the recommendation through his department head and through the development of the annual budget. on that motion. >> so moved. >> all right. without objection. [gavel] >> and again, as stated, many of these conversations regarding the civil grand jury reports will continue beyond this hearing, but we as a committee are restrained to certain responses that we must provide. with that, moving on to item number 4, madam clerk, please. >> item number 4 is a hearing to receive updates from various
5:05 am
city departments required to pro ~ hearing to receive updates from various city departments required to provide a response on the implementation of recommendation nos. 3 and 4.2 contained in the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report, entitled "log cabin ranch: planning for the future, a continuity report" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of thea implementations. ~ these implementations. >> all right, thank you. and for these as a refresher, we are hearing an update on recommendations 3 and 4.2, recommendation 3 was the master plan for log cabin ranch to determine the cap [speaker not understood] for viable facility. and 4.2 was to examine collaboration with regional counties to develop programs to address the needs of high-risk and at-risk youth. and for this item like to bring up chief alan [speaker not understood], welcome. and followed by the civil grand jury. >> thank you, vice-chair tang, supervisor chiu, members of the public. i'm very pleased to appear back
5:06 am
before this committee regarding the work of log cabin ranch and our efforts in reference to the two recommendations that were advanced by the civil grand jury. as to recommendation number 3, funding a master plan for log cabin ranch, we maintain that that is the direction that the city and our department should follow in understanding the best way to meet the needs of the young people that are committed to that facility and to understand the extent to which a facility such as log cabin ranch is necessary here in san francisco. in our current year budget submission, we have included the $325,000 fund request to support the master plan initiative. again, this is the second year that we have submitted this in our budget and we feel very
5:07 am
strongly that with the support of the mayor's office and the board of supervisors that this work will allow us to garner a deeper understanding of the need for that facility and the extent to which the program should continue. as to recommendation 4.2, the regional partnerships have already initiated contact with the san mateo county chief probation department and chief pro he baton officer regarding possible collaboration. as you may know, san mateo's camp glenn wood is located on the same grounds ~ adjacent to log cabin ranch and they have a similar program model that they are seeking to advance for their facility and for their county. the population of young people in our juvenile justice system
5:08 am
has declined over the last five years. we have seen a significant reduction in the number of young people committed to our juvenile hall facility, some 40% reduction over the last five years so that our average daily population in juvenile hall is in the 70s. today, where five years ago it was well over 150, those numbers are also indicative of reductionses in the number of young people committed to log cabin ranch. however, at the same time, we recognize that the need for a rehabilitative environment for the highest risk juveniles in our system is necessary in order to preserve public safety and to enhance the quality of life of those young people and the community. so, as to those two recommendations we ask that this committee continue to support through resolution that we advance a master plan for log cabin ranch. and i will continue to advance
5:09 am
the conversations with local and regional partners in an effort to identify collaboration and coordinated efforts for our program delivery. thank you. >> all right, thank you. any questions from colleagues? no. all right. with that, civil grand jury. >> first, thank you, supervisors chiu and tang for this follow-up hearing. and my name is leslie [speaker not understood]. i was a chair of the civil grand jury committee which would report on log cabin. first of all, my committee would like to commend chief alan nantz for all the efforts that he has undertaken to meet some of the recommendations from the civil grand jury.
5:10 am
~ the civil grand jury committee which wrote this report is aware there have been developments at log cabin ranch which have been some concerns about the future of the facility. one has been the departure of the director of log cabin ranch, and the ranch is now being led by an interim director. the main concern has been the recommendation for the master plan. the needs assessment, which was a precursor for the proposed master plan, was not completed as scheduled due to some unfortunate developments and that has left some uncertainty about the state of the master plan. we ask the board of supervisors to ensure that log cabin ranch is not, once again, frozen in an unsatisfactory status quo which serves neither the youth nor the citizens of san francisco. and we urge the board to fund a
5:11 am
master plan to finally make some determinations about the future and the state of log cabin ranch. so, thank you very much. >> thank you. any questions from the committee? okay, thank you very much for your presentation. with that, we'd like to open it up for public comment. any members of the public? [inaudible]. are you lumping these two item for public comment? [speaker not understood]. first of all, i would like to say that i'm here very much supporting [speaker not understood]. what they're doing in their department i would say is above standards [speaker not understood]. heatx been here, only the high rate of homicides. [speaker not understood]. he's working now with the department that really affects
5:12 am
our young -- its generation, not very much supportive and very, very supportive of master plan. so, i would leave it at that. i would say i'm very much supportive of the plan. doing a good job. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> with that like to entertain a motion to adopt the following language, that the board of supervisors report to the form 2012-2013 city and county of san francisco. not i am mevv recommendation 3 for reasons as follows. recommendation is not within the scope of the board's responsibilities, and [speaker not understood] juvenile probation department to complete a community needs assessment to serve as the foundation for a master plan going forward. and that the board of supervisors reports that it will not implement recommendation 4.2 for reasons as follows. the recommendation is not within the scope of the board's responsibilities and the board defers to the ongoing efforts of the city's juvenile probation department to collaborate with other california counties to develop
5:13 am
regional strategies for high-risk offenders. all right. on that motion? >> so moved. >> without objection. [gavel] >> it is adopted. thank you very much. and now, madam clerk, the last remaining item, item 5, please. >> item number are 5 is a hearing to receive updates, from various city departments required to provide a response, on the implementation of recommendation nos. 1.1, 1.2, and 5.1 contained in the 2012-2013 civil grand jury report, entitled "building a better future at the department of building inspection" and respond to the civil grand jury on the status of these implementations. >> thank you very much. so, for refresher, we are going to be revisiting 1.1, 1.2, and 5.1 of the civil grand jury report. 1.1 stated the dbi management should retain a consultant to update the ~ 2007 bpr findings and recommendations and present those findings to the building inspection commission and the dbi director.
5:14 am
recommendation 1.2 was that the building inspection commission and dbi director should develop a detailed action plan with firm due dates for implementing bpr reports and recommendations that the consultant identify did you not completed. and the last one 5.1, the board of supervisors should hold a hearing within six months basically to hear this report and see if the building inspection commission has taken action on these issues raised. so, with that i'd like to bring up and welcome department head tom hughey as well as the building inspection commission president, agnes mccarthy and followed by a civil grand jury report. welcome, director hughey. >> good morning, supervisor tang and supervisor chiu. my name is tom hughey, director of department of building inspection. today i regret to inform you
5:15 am
recent six informal rfp for six qualified consultants. no response from any of those consultants for the scope of work regarding the bpr. only one consultant called us. they said they are too busy, they don't want to do the work. one now -- [speaker not understood] i know the time is essential to, you know, get these ahead and to move ahead to update our bpr. bpr is a complicated process. it take a year or something with 200 recommendation to suffer loss of, you know, permit processing including the action all the other department and also the stakeholder. and we try to get [speaker not understood]. that will take a long time.
5:16 am
i have another option i want to see how you feel is to get a help from general service agency, another city agency to help me to conduct this bpr process, you know, to scope the work and then, you know, to open up the discussion to see which way we can improve our process. especially we need to update, it's already seven years old and enlarge the new ordinance and enlarge the parts of processing we he want. that's what i want to see how we can improve it. those are two different options. option a is [speaker not understood] may not have anyone to come, any consulting interest to do this kind of work. and then option b is going to ask other agencies to help me. thank you.
5:17 am
>> all right, thank you. one question that i do have is regarding your second option to potentially work with gsa. is that a conversation that you've had with that department moving forward, seeing as that the responses to the rfp has been lacking, is that a conversation you've had already? >> i already talked with them. they are -- actually right now, [speaker not understood] one staff from gsa to help me. his name is gary love. he is full time on my office to understand the process, and then trying to do something to scope the work. >> certainly i think that we all do have a shared interest in wanting to see this project move forward. but, of course, we understand the nature of if you are not getting response after the bids to the rfp that is a whole separate issue. so, i think that for me it's really to the extent that you can work with various city departments to try to implement this and move forward, that would probably be the best alternative. >> okay, thank you.
5:18 am
>> all right. any questions from the committee? no? all right, with that, then like to bring up the civil grand jury representative -- oh, i'm sorry, angus mccarthy from the building inspection commission. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you. i was going to save you some time here. i concur with what tom says. and obviously the commission is very committed, as soon as we can get kind of a clear direction how to proceed, we will definitely implement it and do everything we can to move it along. okay, thank you. >> thank you. with that, civil grand jury, please. thank you.
5:19 am
>> good morning, my name is jerry grantler. i was one of the civil grand jury members who worked on the dbi report. with respect to recommendation 1 , dbi has an operating surplus through the end of last year of $58 million. and as you can see from that schedule, it is growing each year ~. so, we feel that this is the right time for this to be addressed and to bring in the outside consultant to do the work. in the october 10th, 2013 hearing, this committee determined there had not been a performance audit of dbi in the last 13 years and recommended the independent budget analyst perform an audit of dbi.
5:20 am
we do not believe that has been scheduled. in addition, once the performance audit is scheduled, we would like to see a root cause analysis of why noticeses of violation failed to be closed out. and also we believe this work would be complementary to supervisor wiener's land use committee work. with respect to recommendation 1.2, there were 180 specific recommendations in the business process re-engineering study and many of them are dependent on the implementation of the new acela permit tracking and project management system. the city found a $4.5 million contract for the new system in
5:21 am
october of 2011. ~ the city signed if the new system is implemented by october of 2014, it will have taken three years to implement the new system. the civil grand jury wants to know when the new system will be implemented and when san francisco citizens can take advantage of the citizen web portal to check the status of notice of violations and building permits. with respect to recommendation 5.1, the follow-up hearing, the civil grand jury in their report highlighted the notice of violation problems summarized on the attached schedule. it's the back of the schedule that you have. our principal finding was that 72% of the notice of violations were closed out 12 months from
5:22 am
the date of issuance. that means 27-1/2% of them took longer than 12 months to be closed out. as you know, when there is a complaint, a building inspector is sent to the site. and if they find a code violation, they issue a notice of violation. as you can see from this schedule, 1,22 1 novs in the two-year period we examined, were not closed out within 12 months of the date of issuance. these are building safety issues. you will also see that 489 or 11% of the novs were never closed out three and four years after the date of issuance. specifically, we were unable to find any written performance
5:23 am
standards for when nov should be closed out from the date of issuance and we specifically want written reporting indicating the elapsed time between when the novs are issued and when they are closed out. thank you. >> thank you very much. and i'm wondering if any department representative can respond to number 1, the issue regarding the surplus that the civil grand jury is referring to as well as the issue regarding the notice of violation responses. >> good morning, i'm gail [speaker not understood], active chief financial officer for dbi. in terms of the surplus,edth fund surplus, we have been in a really high boom cycle and we have more permits at a higher valuation than those projected,
5:24 am
which is accumulating a large surplus. over the last couple of years, we have added more staff to help address the notice of violation issue and also because our revenues are higher, we have had the ability to staff up. as you probably recall, in 2008 we laid off about a third of our work force. so, bringing that work force back up is helping us address the backlog and also spend more of the revenue that we are collecting. we are doing a fee study now to also look at our fees given the volume to make sure they're still appropriate so that we don't continue to have a surplus in fund balance as we do currently. >> okay, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang, supervisor chiu, since i take over the office, i realize, you know, the code enforcement is a top priority. as we already report to the commission, you know, what is
5:25 am
the, you know, how much complaint, how much, you know, nov and how much we forward case to the city attorney. and also is we define certain part. something we need to hold, certain nov like the illegal, you know. that's what we [speaker not understood] the supervisor, we don't want to do the, you know, code enforcement right away for the illegal. you know, right now those are [speaker not understood] hold. certain part is certain violation you cannot get into the building. that's what [speaker not understood] they keep it open. now they recode it a couple times, we cannot enter because you get a warrant to go into someone else's building, it's not that easy, except as, you know, by the city attorney. otherwise, those case, we would close it.
5:26 am
close and abate is different. abate means [speaker not understood]. that's why we define those process right now. everything is transparent. we talk to the commission and if anyone can see what we have, you know, we talk to them. we are putting more people in the code enforcement to clean up all those backlog because those are 10 years old, you know, backlog, we are trying to clean up. also is [speaker not understood] to address we are [speaker not understood] to hire more people, but we don't have any space. that's why we are working closely with real estate, how to find a place to do our service and then we wanned to expand our service [speaker not understood] to help the customer to do the process more transparent and then [speaker not understood] get the permit and service. thank you.
5:27 am
>> thank you very much. so, at this time, then, i'd like if there are no questions -- we did actually give -- i don't know if we're allowed to go back to the civil grand jury. okay, all right. >> briefly. the performance reporting that i observed in the bic is really just a number of novs issued and the number of novs closed within a month. because of the time disconnect, that kind of reporting is ineffective. also, there are no performance standards and anecdotal discussions about specific types of novs doesn't really move the process forward. there needs to be standards. there needs to be specific reporting. and is the problem getting better or worse. right now there is no visibility into that. thank you for the additional
5:28 am
time. >> thank you very much. with that, then, i'd like to open up this item for public comment. [inaudible] i'm not really sure the public will have a chance to speak on non-item here, but i parallel what i want to say here. my purpose today was city government, a change in city government -- >> i'm sorry, i just want to make sure that your comments are actually directed toward item number 5. yes, okay. i'm trying [speaker not understood]. yes, speaking -- yes, i will speak on department of building. i read an article over a year ago -- and this is one of the departments that obviously because you have the grand jury involved, it has been involved what i call misconduct and [speaker not understood]. still, from every department, if you do an overall evaluation of what's going on. so, the reason why i'm here speaking on that, and i'll
5:29 am
stick to it parallel about the future of the [speaker not understood] of department of inspection, in order to do that, this must be oversite. there must be constant oversite and have input in particular with the community involvement city government. so, i guess parallel what i'm saying is that i think it should go a step further than grand jury. i'm not sure what the process is, but because of building and health involved with their department head, i guess they replaced the gentleman that was called -- how you call t corruptness. it just shows a pattern on how the city and county [speaker not understood] has been corrupt and is corrupt and needs oversight. >> thank you. thank you, next speaker, please. hello, supervisors, my name is todd [speaker not understood] and i was a member of the civil grand jury the year before the report we're
5:30 am
speaking about today and i worked on one of the technology reports. and all i really wanted to suggest was there have been a lot of changes in technology in this city that have been useful. one is the committee on information technology looks at software study projects not going well or taking a long time. and we saw a permitting project within the department of building inspection might be a topic for a future meeting. that's all i want to say. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wishing to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> with that i'd like to entertain a motion it adopt the following language. that the board of supervisors reports to the foreman of the 2012-2013 city and county of san francisco civil grand jury that it will not implement recommendation 1.1 for the reason as follows. the recommendation is not within the scope of the board's responsibilities and the board defers to the reported ongoing efforts of the city department of building inspection to complete an issue and

22 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on